linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] Unified NMI delayed call mechanism

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1276865304.1875.12.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:48:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Unified NMI delayed call mechanism

On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 14:25 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So aside from the should this be perf or not, the above is utter
> > gibberish. Whoever came up with this nonsense?
> 
> This is pretty much how softirqs (and before them bottom halves) work.
> I believe Linus invented that scheme originally back in the early
> days of Linux.

Doesn't mean its the right abstraction for this.

> It's actually quite simple and works well

And adds more code than it removes whilst providing a very limited
service.

You generally want to pass more information along anyway, now your
callback function needs to go look for it. Much better to pass a
work_struct like thing around that is contained in the state it needs.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/